:
:Here is an interesting article that has picked up 485 reader responses already:
:
:Do we even need a fibre National Broadband Network?
:===================================================
:
:The following post is by Sean Kaye, a senior Australian IT executive. It first
appeared on his personal blog, Sean on
:IT, and is re-published here with his permission. Kaye also blogs at Startups
Down Under.
:
:opinion As someone who is very pro-technology and likes to be on the cutting
edge, I find myself staring at many of my
:colleagues and acquaintances in the industry with disbelief when the topic of
the National Broadband Network comes up.
:People I know (and some who just email or tweet me) ask if Iíve bumped my head
and forgotten what I do for a living. It
:even has had me re-thinking my views, but ultimately I keep coming to the same
place.
:
:Hereís what I think Ö
:
:First of all, $43 billion is a ridiculous sum of money to spend on anything. It
is even crazier when the country finds
:itself coming off a $22 billion surplus and staring down the barrel of $100
billion of debt. I donít think this is at
:all right now about need, but is entirely about our ability to cover the cost
of such a thing.
:
:The full story and responses at the following URL:
:http://delimiter.com.au/2010/08/10/do-we-even-need-a-fibre-national-broadband-network/#commenting
:
:Cheers Don...

I haven't bothered to read al lthe various links referred to in this thread. I
see it in rather simple terms as follows.

Putting fibre into every home is akin to putting a 6" diameter water main into
every home. There is no way in the world a home could use the capacity of either
a 6" waer pipe, and similarly so for fibre. "That's ok", you might say, "you
don't need to pay for the full bandwidth capability of the fibre, just pay for
what you reckon you need." Sure, but that is still like having a 6" water pipe
but with a stop cock to regulate the amount of water you can pull out at any
given rate.

There is simply no way that 99% of households can justify needing 100Mbps let
alone 1Gbps. The only places which would justify fibre to the premises (dare I
say for the next 10 years or so) are businesses, educational/research and the
medical facilities. For the majority of households a guaranteed 20Mbps would be
more than adequate and this could easily be provided using a FTTN solution which
would cost around half as much as the FTTH. So, to my mind, fibre to the home is
largely a waste of money. I think the best solution currently would be fibre to
the node with the last 300m in copper. Perhaps later down the track FTTH would
be justified and then it would be even cheaper to connect individual homes.

The problem is that both political parties who are capable of forming government
have got themselves into a major bind because Telstra owns the existing copper
network and neither one wants to allow Telstra to own any part of the
infrastructure associated with a terestrial NBN, no matter what solution is
used. A FTTN NBN would mean that Telstra's competitors would have to install
their own fibre nodes (or pay Telstra to lease spare capacity on theirs), and
then also rely upon Telstra copper for the last 300m, and that is a big no-no as
far as they, and the libs and labor are concerned. That is the real reason we
have this FTTH NBN proposal in the first place - it is pure pig-headedness on
the part of the government of the day (whichever) which has put the nation where
we are today with regard to a modern NBN.

It is possible that if labor gets in again and pays Telstra $11B for their ducts
as they say they will, they could then change their minds and go for a FTTN
solution, but somehow I can't see that happening.

The real problem with a 6" water main is that we do not have the capacity
(water towers) to put the water down the pipe in any significant
continuous flow.

OTOH, FTTH doesn't rely on a single source of data. You use it or not.

The positive way to think about putting FO to every home (well 93%,
maybe) is that you are really replacing the now limited copper with
something that, hopefully, will be sufficient for data demands for
decades.

The real limitation is going to be the $30/month access charge (what %
can afford that?), plus the $/Gb costs.

:On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:42:35 +0800, Ross Herbert wrote:
:
::> Putting fibre into every home is akin to putting a 6" diameter water:> main into every home. There is no way in the world a home could use the:> capacity of either a 6" waer pipe, and similarly so for fibre.
:
:The real problem with a 6" water main is that we do not have the capacity
:(water towers) to put the water down the pipe in any significant
:continuous flow.

Well, I was hypothesising as if the water delivery capability was similar to
that of the fibre.
:
:OTOH, FTTH doesn't rely on a single source of data. You use it or not.

It depends on what you intend to use it for though. I can't see any likelihood
of many households requiring the bandwidth capability of fibre. I hear that in
other countries one of the main uses of ftth is to download movies. Well, if
that is the case, then it is a sad waste of a valuable resource and is not what
fibre is intended for.

:
:The positive way to think about putting FO to every home (well 93%,
:maybe) is that you are really replacing the now limited copper with
:something that, hopefully, will be sufficient for data demands for
:decades.

Yes, I can see that but copper has sufficient bandwidth for 20 - 30Mbps provided
there is no more than 300m between the fibre node and the end user. There are
other advantages in favour of copper as well. For example, where a customer (eg.
a pensioner) has no interest in broadband, and only requires a reliable plain
old telephone service (POTS), they will be forced onto the fibre and then be
saddled with the ongoing cost of powering the ONT. They will also be burdened
with the upkeep and periodic replacement of a back-up battery in the PSU if they
should be so demanding as to want the POTS to keep working during mains outages.
That isn't the case now.

Here is an ADC Krone document showing the various network technology options and
capabilities
http://www-wsp.adckrone.com/asia/en/PDF/literature/carrier/whitepapers/FTTN_401116SG.pdf

From this it seems to me that the cheapest and best option would have been aan
integrated hybrid fibre coaxial network which would have allowed existing POTS
customers to carry on using their existing telephone with the same reliability
as previously.

Indeed, back in 1995 Telstra Research Labs produced this document
http://www.telepower.com.au/INT95a.PDF

The very first paragraph indicates the degree of importance Telstra placed on
providing a reliable "lifeline service" for a POTS over a broadband network.

"This paper outlines the contribution that powering
makes to the plain old telephone service (POTS)
availability on an integrated hybrid/fibre coax (IHFC)
customer access network. POTS reliability is
recognised as a highly important performance metric by
Telstra. Thus, new technologies such as those of the
IHFC architectures will need to exhibit an availability
performance that maintains the public's confidence and
perception of POTS as a lifeline service."

With the passive optical network we are getting all that goes out the window and
the customer no longer will have that reliable "lifeline service" provided and
maintained by the service provider.

Lol, I think that same sad waste applies to what is on Radio and TV.
Unfortunately, IMO it is just get worse.

Which, in the suburbs really means your copper will just be from the
front footpath to you "phone" point. Might just be easier to take it all
the way. AFAIK, most (all?) suburban houses have cable in conduit from
the pit to the house.

Agree entirely.

Is that from when they wee required to do so? I think they now shuck the
community obligation load under the NBN.

:On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:57:39 +0800, Ross Herbert wrote:
:
::> Well, I was hypothesising as if the water delivery capability was:> similar to that of the fibre.
:
:Standard problem with using an analogy.
::> ::> :OTOH, FTTH doesn't rely on a single source of data. You use it or not.:> :> It depends on what you intend to use it for though. I can't see any:> likelihood of many households requiring the bandwidth capability of:> fibre. I hear that in other countries one of the main uses of ftth is to:> download movies. Well, if that is the case, then it is a sad waste of a:> valuable resource and is not what fibre is intended for.
:
:Lol, I think that same sad waste applies to what is on Radio and TV.
:Unfortunately, IMO it is just get worse.
:
::> :> ::> :The positive way to think about putting FO to every home (well 93%,:> :maybe) is that you are really replacing the now limited copper with:> :something that, hopefully, will be sufficient for data demands for:> :decades.:> :> Yes, I can see that but copper has sufficient bandwidth for 20 - 30Mbps:> provided there is no more than 300m between the fibre node and the end:> user.
:
:Which, in the suburbs really means your copper will just be from the
:front footpath to you "phone" point. Might just be easier to take it all
:the way. AFAIK, most (all?) suburban houses have cable in conduit from
:the pit to the house.
::> There are other advantages in favour of copper as well. For:> example, where a customer (eg. a pensioner) has no interest in:> broadband, and only requires a reliable plain old telephone service:> (POTS), they will be forced onto the fibre and then be saddled with the:> ongoing cost of powering the ONT. They will also be burdened with the:> upkeep and periodic replacement of a back-up battery in the PSU if they:> should be so demanding as to want the POTS to keep working during mains:> outages. That isn't the case now.
:
:Agree entirely.
::> "This paper outlines the contribution that powering makes to the plain:> old telephone service (POTS) availability on an integrated hybrid/fibre:> coax (IHFC) customer access network. POTS reliability is recognised as a:> highly important performance metric by Telstra.
:
:Is that from when they wee required to do so? I think they now shuck the
:community obligation load under the NBN.

Well, at the moment Telstra still must honour its CSO (now called Universal
Service Obligation - USO)as far as POTS is concerned. This obligation has only
changed since the inception of the current NBN proposal.

Here is what the government's policy says with regard to fibre and Telstra's USO
and POTS.
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/broadband/national_broadband_network/policy_statements

in brief it states;

Delivery of Universal Service Obligations within NBN Fibre Coverage Areas

Telstra will have a regulated obligation to continue to operate and maintain its
existing copper lines while the fibre network is rolled out, until the copper
exchange associated with that fibre area is decommissioned.

So, the old rules which included Telstra's obligation to provide a reliable
"lifeline service" POTS has now been relegated to the dustbin. It's every person
for themselves after FTTH and if you happen to be a senior citizen who relies
upon the POTS as a "lifeline service", well, "that's just too bad. You're on
your own and you must now take responsibility for supplying and maintaining your
ONT backup battery".

Just imagine the complexity entailed in the ONT itself, plus the UPS and its
backup battery, all required just so a person can have a POTS - which once used
to be a very simple system. And when something fails in that equipment, how does
the customer know which part is faulty if they non tech-heads? OK, you call up
NBNCo service and they determine (hopefully) whether the fault is in the ONT or
the UPS which they might fix for free, but if the fault is anywhere past that
point the customer is responsible. I know that is the case even now, but where
the POTS is a "lifeline service" which someone relies upon, this doesn't help
much. A particular case would be where the backup battery has died. The UPS
supplied with the ONT isn't a sophisticated unit which monitors the battery
condition and notifies the customer that it needs replacing, so it is unlikely
to be noticed until the power fails during a storm or bushfire and the customer
can't make that 000 call. Too bad.....

Here is Telstra's instruction to homeowners with their Velocity FTTH service
http://www.telstra.com.au/smartcommunity/assets/smartcommunitybattery_1108.pdf

The same will apply no matter which service provider is used unless the
government changes the rules and makes the provider responsible for the battery.
Can you imagine any service provider saying they will accept this
responsibility? I think there are something like 8 million homes in Australia.
Industry and commerce can afford to do it because they do so now with their
existing fibre networks, but it won't be acceptable to homeowners as far I as I
can see.

You do realise they propose to sell it eventually? And I'll bet money now it
will be at a loss!

Nope, it's because we have the lowest population density in the world,
outside of the major cities. And the HUGE cost of the NBN is so a few people
in the bush can get broadband too, subsidised by city taxpayers.

What crap. There are two fibres down every street in my area, and THREE
independant wireless networks!!
Wasteful duplication forces up costs, just as a public, OR private monopoly
does!